Seven-year-old sacrificed to the gods for good harvest in India

[skepticscott]

30. It's been a long-used tactic among the apologists here

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 07:10 AM - Edit history (2)

to try to dismiss refutations of their arguments by responding "that's not EXACTLY what I said", or words to that effect, so I like to nip that in the bud right away. In any case, I'm not sure why you're uncomfortable having a discussion focus on what you actually said, and would rather have me and everyone else read your mind to figure out what you meant that was so much different, other than that the latter gives you an easy distraction from the actual issues involved by saying that we've misstated things. If your "intent" has been misconstrued, no one is preventing you from clarifying things, though if what you say is too often not what you meant, then how about making an effort to see that what you write more accurately reflects what you really mean? As has been explained to you previously, words mean things, and specific words are chosen to convey specific meanings. If you're going to use specific words and statements in your posts to persuade people of things, then why in the world would I focus on different words if I disagree with you?

In the end, my response was a substantial one, but to listen to you, someone would think that I'd gone on for paragraphs nit-picking that you'd used "your" instead of "you're".

And if "your tactics" means showing how your specific statements don't pass logical or factual muster, then I can understand why you'd rather not engage (btw, is that what makes someone a "vicious bully"?). But refusing to respond to refutations of your posts won't get you any more of a pass than it does your father. Not from me or from anyone else here.